Content
53%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A lean, well-structured overview that appropriately offloads detail to a single reference file, but the body itself lacks executable guidance and explicit verification steps for the review workflow.
Suggestions
Add at least one concrete, copy-paste-ready example in the body (e.g. a CSS background-position sprite snippet or a DevTools check command) instead of deferring all detail to the reference.
Include an explicit verification step in the Code Review section, such as 'Confirm in DevTools Network panel that request count dropped and the sprite loads once'.
Turn the prose 'see references/rule.md' into a proper markdown link for clearer navigation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is short and largely avoids over-explaining concepts Claude already knows, though the lead sentence and Quick Reference bullets restate basic sprite/HTTP facts that could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance stays high-level ('Create CSS sprites for icons and small images, or migrate to SVG icons') with no executable code, commands, or concrete steps in the body itself; actionable detail is deferred entirely to the reference file. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections give a rough sequence for a review task, but there are no validation checkpoints or verification steps for confirming the fix in DevTools beyond a passing mention. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with a clearly signaled one-level-deep pointer to references/rule.md (a real file), and the section structure aids navigation; minor gap is that the reference is named in prose rather than as a linked path. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |